Connecticut House Bill HB06786

Connecticut 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/23/23
• Refer: 2/23/23
• Report Pass: 3/28/23
• Refer: 4/5/23
• Report Pass: 4/12/23
• Engrossed: 5/16/23
• Report Pass: 5/18/23
• Passed: 5/31/23
• Chaptered: 6/5/23
• Enrolled: 6/6/23
• Passed: 6/7/23

Caption

An Act Concerning Service Of Bank Executions, Wage Executions And Tax Warrants By State Marshals And Authorized Service Of Process By Indifferent Persons.

Impact

The bill has an important impact on state laws regarding the management of financial transactions linked to court judgments. It places stricter requirements on financial institutions to respond to executions and to communicate effectively with serving officers. This can lead to faster resolutions for creditors while safeguarding the rights of judgment debtors by detailing the notifications and exempt funds that must remain in their accounts. The bill's amendments to existing laws regarding service of process also clarify the responsibilities of state marshals and other officers in executing court orders.

Summary

House Bill 6786, titled 'An Act Concerning Service Of Bank Executions, Wage Executions And Tax Warrants By State Marshals And Authorized Service Of Process By Indifferent Persons', introduces significant changes to the process by which financial institutions and state marshals handle bank and wage executions. It mandates financial institutions to promptly notify serving officers when funds are removed from a judgment debtor's account, ensuring that there is a clear communication channel during the execution process. The changes are aimed at streamlining the execution process while increasing accountability and transparency for all parties involved.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 6786 is generally supportive among legislators focused on improving the efficiency of judicial processes. Proponents argue that the bill enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of the execution process by standardizing procedures that financial institutions must follow. However, there may be concerns among consumer advocates regarding the treatment of judgment debtors and the exemptions that are in place. Overall, the discourse appears to focus on balancing the needs of creditors with protections for individuals subjected to execution.

Contention

While the bill appears to be broadly beneficial, there are notable points of contention. Critics may argue that the increased pressure on financial institutions to comply with execution orders could unintentionally lead to errors or unfounded seizures of funds that are exempt from execution. Additionally, the definitions of what constitutes a proper service of process could lead to legal challenges, potentially impacting the protection for individuals facing execution. There is a view that the bill, while improving efficiency, could overlook the nuances of individual cases and the potential for financial institutions to hold undue power in the execution process.